Where we are disagreeing is about your attempt to argue that studying events
of the past - & therefore biological evolution - isn't science.

Iit would be helpful you'd just make some straightforward statements about
your position on biological evolution. Do you think that it's good science
to say that biological evolution ("macroevolution" if you will, "descent
with modification") has taken place & explains (at least penultimately) the
forms of life that exist on earth today?

There is no argument that data collecting is done in time. However, the
generalization of such data, which are recorded as historical propositions,
constitutes our laws of Nature. Of course, without such unique historical
events, no data can be collected. I do not see where we are disagreeing.

So when we say, on the basis of the equations of celestial mechanics (which
are invariant under time translation) that a solar eclipse occurred at time
t1 in the past, is the statement scientific? Of course it is.

& your definition of science is far too stringent even for the natural
sciences. Sometimes the experimental scientists want to find out what has
happened on particular occasions. When a physicist studies a photographic
emulsion exposed to cosmic rays his/her first goal is to find out what
happened in the events recorded there. Of course a longer-term goal is to
develop general laws that describe such reactions but it would be very
strange to say that the answer to the intermediate question (i.e., what
happened in those particular events?) wasn't science.

We all exist in time and so there is nothing outside historyâ€”no one can run
away from it. However, the aim of experimental science is to arrive at
results that are invariant under time translation. Surely, that is not the
aim of evolutionary theory.

>A simple way to state your findings is that evolution has to do a lot more
>with history than with scienceâ€”something many of us have been saying for a
>long time.
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> dfsiemensjr [dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 5:26 PM
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: schwarzwald@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Imagine that four guys sit down at a table with a pack of cards. One picks
> the pack up and begins to deal them. At the fifth round, one of the guys
> says, "There's something fishy. Every card I've gotten is a heart." One of
> the others says, "Yeah, all I've gotten is clubs." The third chap says,
> "Mine are spades." The dealer picks up his cards and reports, "I have
> nothing but diamonds." It seems obvious that somebody gimmicked the deck.
> But can the guys at the table determine whether it was deliberate or just
> an unusual outcome of an honest deal? It seems to me that they cannot
> decide without tracing the deck back and determining the bona fides of
> everyone who had access to the deck. Just observing the outcome won't do
> it, and perhaps all the information they can gather does not lead to a
> definitive conclusion.
>
> Looks to me as though our observations of a sequence of evolutionary
> events, as closely as we can now determine them, does not tell us whether
> the changes were determined by intelligent forces from without or internal
> natural changes. The changes, so far as empirical observations can
> determine the source, are equally compatible with direct divine
> intervention, constant divine supervision, and a series of purely natural
> events. One has to call in extra-empirical assumptions to bolster whatever
> claim one makes. All the empirical can tell is is the nature of the
> natural changes, whether an insertion or deletion occurred, etc. ID
> insists that they know it was intervention, at least some times.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT) John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>> writes:
> This is the impasse between ID and TE. To the extent that this is in
> error, TE's tend to err on the side of upholding the integrity of science.
> It appears to me that ID tends to err on the side of upholding a
> philosophical or theological ideal. I don't disagree with that ideal but
> as I have said before I don't believe it is scientific so I don't see how
> we can make such an issue out of a subjective belief. Further, I don't
> think there is any conflict between these two positions so I reject the
> positioning of them as being mutually exclusive as Behe does here.
>
> His personal beliefs aside, Darwin was at least partially right in the
> fact that randomness does contribute to evolution. While it may not
> explain all of evolution you have to at least concede that much to be
> allowed to sit at the table of science and to have your views taken
> seriously. And Eugenie Scott and NCSE serve a valid purpose in policing
> this. Behe and ID need to at least acknowledge this much about Darwinian
> evolution to ever regain the public trust that they are not just
> theocratic science deniers.
>
> John
>
> ________________________________
> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 11:24:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Heya John,
>
> Personally, I'm coming to Behe's defense because the claim that Behe is
> 'anti-evolution' is simply unfounded. It seems like some people are
> sensitive on this topic to the point where any criticism of evolution -
> even if it's specified as Darwinian evolution, even if it's based on
> interpretations of data and research, even if it's admitted these are
> (strong) inferences rather than logical proofs - must be balanced out, in
> the next breath, by a public declaration of faith in at least some kind of
> evolution. Otherwise, suspicions start to mount. That, I think, is an
> exaggerated response.
>
> In other words, I just don't share your impression. I also don't share
> what I take to be this feeling that it's very, very important for Behe to
> balance out his criticisms of darwinian evolution by praising evolution in
> the broad sense. Then again, I think that this obsession with evolution
> (by many, spanning various views and faiths) needs to come to an end
> anyway.
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:45 PM, John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> This is exactly right. Behe does make claims against Darwinian evolution.
> I asked the same question before, is there another form of evolution that
> Behe is more comfortable with? If so, he didn't mention it in the video
> that I recall.
>
> I know he has spoken and written other things in other places about
> evolution but in this video he does come across as being against
> evolution. Its not like it was heavily edited either and made to look a
> certain way nor was he responding to a strict set of questions. He could
> have said anything he wanted and made any point he wanted and left any
> impression he wanted but this is what he chose. Why is everyone then
> apologizing for Behe and saying this is a mischaracterization of him?
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> To: asa <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 10:06:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
> Hi Cameron-
>
> " Please find me one statement, anywhere in Behe's work, where he says
> that he is "against evolution", or else do the honourable thing and
> publically
> withdraw your comments."
>
> If you watch the video- he said repeatedly that "Darwinian evolution"
> couldn't do such and such. What other kind of evolution is there? Is he
> saying there's another kind of evolution that he accepts? If so, what does
> he call it?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On
> Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Bernie:
>
> Your remarks about Behe are incorrect. They are not only unsupported by
> any
> references to his works; they show an almost complete misunderstanding of
> his position. It is not Behe who is in a "muddle".
>
> Such a high degree of misunderstanding suggests a lack of familiarity with
> Behe's writing. And this reminds me that you still have not answered my
> earlier question: which books and essays of Behe have you read entirely
> through?
>
> Please find me one statement, anywhere in Behe's work, where he says that
> he
> is "against evolution", or else do the honourable thing and publically
> withdraw your comments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:39 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
>
>> Hi Bill- you apparently see the ID debate as "guided vs. unguided
>> evolution" but I see it as "evolution vs. special creation." ('Special
>> creation' being creation by fiat.)
>>
>> This is what I think I'm starting to see in the current origin's debate
>> culture: Because evolution has been proven by pseudogenes, people want
>> to
>> shift the argument from "did evolution happen" to now "is evolution
>> guided." I think this is the current crisis for OEC's. But I think
>> OEC's
>> reject evolution, so if they want to now accept it, even as 'God-guided,'
>> they still have to leave the camp and come over to TE. The OEC camp will
>> always be there, and it is only for those who reject evolution, guided or
>> not.
>>
>> I think some OEC's are attempting to make a switch from "evolution is
>> false" to "evolution is maybe God-guided" and appeal to Intelligent
>> Design
>> to save face (like a ploy to straddle the fence of accepting both modern
>> science and simultaneously rejecting/accepting evolution).
>>
>> Behe is a perfect example of this muddle, by apparently rejecting
>> evolution (in some aspects) and accepting it for human common descent.
>> Therefore, Behe is neither for or against evolution. Creationists
>> generally like to separate evolution into micro and macro. When Behe
>> says
>> he accepts common descent for humans, that is macro evolution. So here
>> we
>> have Behe accepting micro/macro evolution yet still against evolution for
>> other things. I guess he needs to define another category of evolution,
>> so he can accept micro and macro, but reject this third thing/part of
>> evolution.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Powers [mailto:wjp@swcp.com<mailto:wjp@swcp.com>]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:14 PM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>> Cc: asa
>> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>>
>> OK. I've got to say something about this.
>>
>> Bernie, you apparently believe something like:
>>
>> Intentional/Design theories fail because they have not been able to
>> demonstrate that unguided evolution could not have done it.
>>
>> This is a rather strange way to do science, and only the kind of game
>> that
>> a bully would employ. Is there any kind of evidence that it could be
>> said
>> "unguided evolution" could not do that?
>>
>> What a more civilized approach would be is that evolutionary mechanisms
>> were clearly defined so that what is likely and what is not might be
>> become clear. This would entail, for example, temporal stochastic
>> equations. Is the abrupt arisal of species a problem for unguided
>> (whatever one means by that) evolution or not? It doesn't seem to me
>> that
>> evolutionary biology is prepared to even address the question
>> intelligently.
>>
>> How can there be honest theory comparison when the theory is so vague?
>>
>> ID can also be required to be more explicit. It needs to describe in
>> detail a story, which is nothing more than evolution offers. The story
>> would describe, for example, what are the minimal capabilities and steps
>> required for a Guide to act.
>>
>> Comparing an explicit evolutionary mechanism and a guided one could be
>> fruitful. For one, the guided story is one that could be possibly
>> employed by human agents. The process of putting it together permits
>> dialog between the two. One supporting a guided mechanism might argue
>> that such and such step was entirely unlikely given available resources.
>> In ths same the unguided advocate might argue that such and such a step
>> might be accomplished without guidance, and here's how.
>>
>> In developing explicit guided mechanisms and paths, perhaps new
>> definitions and understanding of what is guided and what is not will
>> arise. For now it is vague.
>>
>> As far as I can tell there is no good evidence available to distinguish
>> guided from unguided evolution. I don't see why "pseudogenes" are any
>> better off in this regard. They appear to adopt a position that you
>> oppose: an argument form ingnorance. Just because we know of no "reason"
>> that a "pseudogene" would exist does not imply that some "reason" might
>> be
>> later found. So all that can be said is that no "reason" is known YET.
>> Sound familiar? What is more, unless you know God or all putative
>> designers better than I do, I don't see how you (or anyone) can say that
>> "pseudogenes" were not intentional.
>>
>> The argument begins to look like Antony Flew's Invisible Gardener. One
>> might ask what is the difference between and invisible Gardener and no
>> Gardener at all, or what is the difference between an invisible designer
>> (guided evolution) and no designer at all (unguided evolution). But I
>> take from Flew's argument something different from what he intended. All
>> his argument suggests to me is that given the evidence provided I have no
>> reason to prefer a Gardener or none at all.
>>
>> Frankly, I think, if one must proceed along these lines, that the
>> evidence
>> better supports a guided universe. The only argument offered in Flew's
>> case to prefer no Gardener at all is Occam's Razor. But I take this to
>> be
>> an epistemological criterion, and see no reason for it to bind ontology.
>> Indeed, if it did, it would argue for a Gardener.
>>
>> bill
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>>> William Paley used the 'watchmaker analogy' to demonstrate the idea of
>>> intelligent design. We can just tell, by looking at nature, that things
>>> are obviously designed by God by fiat, such as man, because of their
>>> complexity.
>>>
>>> Darwin creates a stir with an alternate hypothesis of man's creation via
>>> biological evolution instead. It is a competing hypothesis. Evolution
>>> has now won, for explaining the biological creation of man, because of
>>> DNA evidence like pseudogenes.
>>>
>>> So my question: Isn't Behe's 'moustrap' irreducible complexity the same
>>> EXACT situation? It is basically saying since we don't know how it could
>>> have evolved, therefore it was intelligently designed (by God or
>>> aliens).
>>> The only difference is that Behe goes into great detail trying to
>>> explain
>>> how it can't be done by known "Darwinistic evolutionist" mechanisms, but
>>> Paley could have (and maybe did?) done the same thing (explaining
>>> why/how
>>> known science of his day could not explain evolution for humans).
>>>
>>> I would like to know what is so different about Behe, compared to Paley.
>>> Paley has a 'complexity' argument with the watch, and Behe introduces
>>> irreducible complexity, but both are proposing ID because known science
>>> can't explain it... yet.
>>>
>>> It is interesting to me that Paley's argument for the biological
>>> creation
>>> of man is not discarded because it is wrong with the idea of complexity,
>>> but because the evolutionary process has evidence "beyond a reasonable
>>> doubt." So complexity may still be a valid way to detect ID, yet in
>>> this
>>> case, it turned out wrong as science accumulated more facts. It could
>>> be
>>> the same with irreducible complexity. A valid way to detect ID, yet
>>> disproven in the future when more facts become available.
>>>
>>> But what is the evidence to prove irreducible complexity? It seems like
>>> the only evidence is "evolution can't do it or explain it... yet."
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Best Weight Loss Program - Click
> Here!<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTFoYbJIGGVvhB4N4pRois01alcOlXrsNLcHdIyNmyDSyDKwlJ1fNW/>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 18 21:42:25 2009